ArticleFrontiers in health services2026
Towards person-centered pain management in dementia: usability of a digital medical device in Portuguese residential care facilities.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Pain is common in people living with dementia (PLWD), yet frequently remains unrecognized and undertreated. Traditional observational tools are limited by subjectivity and suboptimal psychometric properties. The PainChek® mobile application (app) is a medical device that enables objective assessment in non-verbal people, such as those with more advanced dementia, using artificial intelligence (AI)-driven recognition of facial muscle movements. This study evaluated the usability of the Portuguese (PT) version of the PainChek® app among formal caregivers in residential care. Methods: Usability was evaluated in a controlled environment, guided by ISO 9241-11:2018 and ISO 25062:2025. After training, 19 participants performed nine tasks using the PainChek®-PT app while undertaking concurrent think-aloud; performance was screen and audio-recorded and supplemented with observation notes. Participants completed the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ-PT). Metrics included effectiveness (success rates, errors), efficiency (task completion time, attempts), satisfaction, usability problems and likely defects. Descriptive statistics were performed and confidence intervals (CI) computed, using 95% CIs for success rates and task times. PSSUQ scores were interpreted using 99% CIs against normative datasets. Results: Eight tasks achieved over 95% success rate. Task 5 (interrupted assessment of an existing resident) represented an outlier at 42% success (95% CI: 23.1-63.7). Seventeen distinct error types were recorded across tasks. Completion times varied considerably; Task 3 (assessing an existing resident's pain via video) had the longest geometric mean (335 s, 95% CI: 269.6-417.2), while log-out (Task 9) had the shortest (11 s, 95% CI: 6.6-18.4). Resident archiving (Task 7) recorded the highest number of attempts (17). The mean overall PSSUQ-PT score was 1.9 (SD: 1.06; 99% CI: 1.20-2.60), outperforming the normative mean of 2.82, with no overlap in 99% CIs. Seven usability problems were identified and linked with likely underlying usability defects. Conclusion: PainChek®-PT demonstrated effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in this context of use, supporting its intended use for conducting pain assessments in non-verbal PLWD. The robustness of the overall PSSUQ score indicates high perceived usability. The errors and usability problems identified in the simulated environment may be addressed through training and minor design refinements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.